My line of work involves doses of politics and social media, so the topic of disinformation frequently comes up. What’s my take? Is it a great scourge of our age or a nuisance that has been blown slightly out of proportion?
I don’t for a minute wish to diminish the perils of disinformation, but I do think the truth sits somewhere in the middle. Of course, it can be terribly damaging. It helps nasties cement their power, and wannabes to attain it. It spreads untruths that can literally be deadly, such as the belief that vaccines cause autism. However, it’s often an easy scapegoat. We blame events we don’t like, such as the election of populists, on disinformation, while ignoring the negligence of mainstream business and political leaders, which has driven disaffection and inequality. Bots exploit disaffection and inequality, they can’t create it from thin air.
But is disinformation likely to become more or less pervasive? There are valid considerations on both sides, but it’s looking pretty bleak. Here are a few things to ponder on the matter, in no particular order.
- Overall, media literacy is improving: it’s being taught in schools; governments and other public bodies are making it a priority
- Kids’ bullshit radars are by and large getting better (based entirely on my interaction with teenagers in my family: I have no empirical evidence)
- Social networks are playing ball (egged on by political and shareholder pressure). This is really important. Making it harder to use Facebook ads or to make money using Google AdSense will disincentivise
- Trust in journalism is on the up (Edelman Trust Barometer)
- Some governments are doing good, as is the EU: pushing it up the agenda, pressuring social networks, supporting good reporting, monitoring election processes, promoting media literacy programmes
- It’s getting easier to fact-check: lots of fact checking sites exist, and they are being used quite widely
- It’s hard to resist: highly emotive and subjective information (as disinformation tends to be) releases dopamine in the brain
- Countering disinformation with facts might not work: confirmation bias means we actually strengthen our beliefs when given contrary evidence
- Worst of all: disinformation has influenced plenty of major political events, and continues to do so
- Nasties invest in disinformation and are getting more proficient at it (no sign of Russian bot farms shutting down)
- Societies are increasingly polarised: anger and distrust means people are more likely to consume and share highly subjective, emotive disinformation
- Audio and video manipulation will make disinformation harder to detect
- 50% of people consume news less than weekly (Edelman Trust Barometer)
- 70% of people have shared content having only read the title (Pew)
- Journalism is under attack, from Trump’s America to Turkey and beyond
- Many good media outlets are struggling: less time to fact check means disinformation gets through the cracks
- Media reports on disinformation as news (think Trump), helping it spread
- It’s hard to regulate. Where do you draw the line? Do Fox News and RT publish disinformation or are they just merely highly partisan? Who checks the fact checkers?
What have I missed? What have I downplayed or overplayed?
3 thoughts on “Disinformation (AKA fake news): getting worse – or some progress in sight?”
Good thinking Steffen, as always.
Worth reading: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html.
I think you’re not sufficiently taking AI into account. On the grand scheme of things, I believe AI-powered machines will make decisions that won’t be real or fake, but just wrong. The decisions taken by machines, or by data-driven people, will not be right or wrong but biased, based on an algorithmical way of “thinking” that will not be human but that people will accept, formatted as they will be by technological fantasies.
So the base reference will be blurred: we will not know what will be fake or real because we will not know what to base our critical thinking on. The totalitarianism of geo-location marketing for example shows how far people are willing to be tracked on a daily basis and shaped by brands.
Good point Luc – and thanks for the link. Interesting.
Funny that the following BBC article came out after I posted the comment above: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46745742
(And BTW that article is a little weak, like many, by putting forward the typical and wrong idea that “tech can be good or bad, depending on how you use it”. Jacques Ellul destroyed that belief in the 50s but alas it’s still mainstream.)